acronis_fetch_current_user_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, so the description's only remaining duty is to add context, and it adds essentially none: no mention of what fields are returned, whether results depend on the caller's token scope, or how failures (expired/invalid credentials) surface. With no output schema, this gap matters more, not less.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It is as short as it can be while still naming the verb, resource, and scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (no parameters, read-only), which lowers the burden, but with no output schema an agent still cannot tell what information comes back or in what shape. Adding one clause about the returned profile/permissions fields would make this complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies the user identity comes from the authenticated context rather than an argument.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Fetches information about the currently authenticated user"), and the "currently authenticated" qualifier implicitly separates it from the id-based acronis_fetch_user and acronis_fetch_tenant_users siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming that distinction, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the phrase "currently authenticated user" — an agent can infer this is for self-context lookups rather than looking up arbitrary users. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of acronis_fetch_user, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an established session.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.